ABSTRACT
The enlargement of NATO was a correct decision both for the alliance objective of stability and security in Europe and for the candidate countries. The decision was taken only after a long process of debate and discussion: first, by the member country policy-makers; second, within the Atlantic alliance; and finally, albeit less intensively in most countries, within the member countries during the ratification process.z While there was a wide range of reasons for supporting enlargement - reasons spanning the political spectrum left to right - it was not a decision taken lightly by any country. Contrary to the assertions of its opponents, the enlargement of NATO fell within the context of very explicit objectives for the alliance - democratic governance, free-market reforms and rule of law, as well as civilian control of the military. Furthermore, the countries aspiring to membership were required to have resolved any border or other problems, not an insignificant hurdle and one with direct implications for the overall stability of Europe. There are justifiable arguments for other approaches to ensuring security for the continent - having enlargement of the European Union (EU) precede NATO enlargement, for instance - but no other approach was realistic during the time in which the decisions were made from 1994 to 1997. NATO enlargement o include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic was the right decision at the right time.
